Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/05/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree with Phong's opinion of the 70-180/2.8 R. Also the 35-70/2.8 R lens can match any Leica prime in its range from 2.8 on. Both are magical lenses. Regards, Greg Phong wrote: >Karen Nakamura wrote: > >>Contemporary primes will always outclass contemporary zooms. >> > >This is truer for wide zooms than tele zooms. I have the 70-180 Apo >Vario Elmarit, and I believe that it is as good as any prime I have used >in that range. Wide zooms (the original topic) just seem to be much harder >to build well. > >- Phong > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Karen Nakamura" <mail@gpsy.com> >To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> >Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 3:30 PM >Subject: RE: [Leica] RE: Wide zooms > > >>>Using both the Nikon 17-35 2.8 and Leica M 21 ASPH, I'll say that >>>there's no doubt there is less distortion with the M lens than there is >>>with the Nikon at 20-21 mm. That said, the Nikon does quite well. >>> >> >>Contemporary primes will always outclass contemporary zooms. The only >>problem is that there is so much money being put in zooms that people >>are rarely recomputing primes to use the new lens coatings, exotic >>glass, and aspheric designs. Oddly, Leica is one of the few that has >>kept up their 'M' primes, mainly because they've been forced to >>(i.e., no M-zooms, not counting the Tri-Elmar). >> >>Karen >>-- >>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html >> > >-- >To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html